Andhra Pradesh Court August 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sri Venkatarama Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: III(2003)BC417
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 213 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada had preferred the present appeal questioning the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, so far it relates to grant of interest. 2. The appellant-plaintiff instituted the suit against the respondent-defendants for realisation of the total amount of Rs. 1,27,354.70 ps together with subsequent interest and cost. For the purpose of deciding the said short question all the factual details which are not in dispute between the parties may not be narrated. However, in short, the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the plaintiff had entered a contract with M/s. Hindustan Levers Ltd., Bombay, to supply 20/100 M.T. of rice bran oil on 10.6.1982at the rate of Rs. 6,900 per M.T. that as per the said contract the plaintiff sent a consignment of the rice bran oil to the said Hindustan Lever Company Ltd., Bombay, from Samalkot Railway Station, and it was by way of a rail way wagon. Sever...
S. Vijayalakshmi Vs. Boyapali Santhamma and anr.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT406
ORDERG. Bikshapathy, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in O.S. No. 6 of 1999 dated 3-12-2001.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,49,000/- in turn the defendant as per the terms of the suit agreement dated 6-11-1997 has to execute the Sale deed. Another relief is also framed directing the defendant to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff or to the persons specified by the plaintiff.3. During the course of trial, the plaintiff tried to introduce the agreement of sale dated 6-11-1997 and mark the same as the suit document. But the same was objected by the defendants on the ground that it is not properly stamped. The lower court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that since the possession was delivered in pursuance of the agreement, it requires necessary stamp duty. The said order is ...
Abhishek Synthetics Private Limited, Rep., by Its Mr. A. Malreddy Ramr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)ALD80; 2003(4)ALT13
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Petitioner company is a holder of Central Excise Registration No. 2/1994, engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn has availed modvat credit on capital goods during the period 1994-95 to the tune of Rs.11,80,000/- and Rs.8,349/- in terms of Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, petitioner-company claimed that inadvertently and purely due to ignorance of the relevant provisions of Central Excise law, depreciation in respect of the part of the credit of duty on the capital goods taken was also claimed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act in the return filed under the Income Tax Act for the accounting year 1994-95. The depreciation claimed for the year 1994-95 was only to an extent of Rs.1,47,500/-. However, according to the petitioner, this amount of Rs.1,47,500/- was paid back to the Central Excise department on 19-12-1997 after noticing the said mistake. The credit of duty paid on certain items of capital goods amounting to Rs.8...
V. Krishna Rao Vs. the Vysya Bank Ltd., Regd. Banking Company
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC489
1. Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, Advocate representing Sri Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Praveen Kumar representing Sri Vilas Afjul Purkar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is the 25th defendant and the respondent - M/s. The Vysya Bank Limited - is the plaintiff in O.S.No.289 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur.3. The only question that was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-25th defendant is whether the appellant-25th defendant is entitled to grant of compensatory costs under Section 35-A C.P.C.? 4. In view of the fact that the arguments are advanced only on this simple question, all factual details need not be discussed at length. The respondent-bank filed the said O.S.No.289 of 1978 against the appellant-25th defendant and other defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,82,862-59 ps. and for passing of preliminary decree and other reliefs. The appellant-25th defendant filed written statement to the effect ...
Smt. K. Uma Maheswari Vs. Addl. Director General of Police, Cid and 2 ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)ALD(Cri)582; 2002(6)ALT301; I(2003)DMC349
ORDERE. Dharma Rao, J.1. Smt. K. Uma Maheswari, who is a Graduate in Computer Science and a holder of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications, got married with one Sri Y. Raghavardhan, a Software Engineer in Atlanta, USA, on 23.10.1999 at VMC Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupathi according to Hindu rites. It is averred that the elders have arranged the marriage of the petitioner with the Y. Raghavardhan with a fond hope that since he is well settled in life, he will protect the interest of the petitioner's well being and her future and paid Rs.4.00 lakhs in cash as dowry and gave gold and silver articles worth Rs.3.00 lakhs and household articles worth Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of marriage. Thereafter a house that was registered in the name of the petitioner was demanded by the Y. Raghavardhan and his father to be transferred in the joint names of the petitioner and Y. Ravhavardhan, and it was threatened that unless such transfer takes place, she will not be taken to USA. After transfer of...
B. Sreedevi and ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara University and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD648
S.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the erstwhile teaching Assistants/ Junior Lecturers who worked in the 2nd respondent-Sri Venkateswara University Junior College, Tirupati, Chittoor district, (for short, 'the college') seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein in closing the college as arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and consequently direct the 1st respondent to reopen the college and/or provide alternative employment to the petitioners.2. The petitioners urge that under Section 26 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, (for short, 'the Act') no private institutionshall be closed down or discontinued, unless a notice of not less than one academic year expiring with the end of any academic year and indicating the intention to do so, has been given by the manager to the officer authorised by the competent authority in that behalf, the 1st respondent ought not have closed down the college and therefore, the petitioners seek appropriate directio...
Kamatam Sangalappa and ors. Vs. Kapadam Sangalappa and ors.
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)ALT213
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This revision is directed against an order dated 1-6-2002 made in E.A. No. 688/2001 in E.P. No. 59/2000 in OS. No. 15/33 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, wherein the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., to add the words 'the elders of Yeerayapalli temple' and delete the word 'respondent' was dismissed.2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this revision, are as under:The nature of the entire dispute is relating to the Sangalappa deity in between the two villages namely, Gangalakunta and Yerraipalli and it is in between Kapadam people and Kamatam people. As per the terms of the compromise, Kamatham Muddanna and others (plaintiffs) of Yerrayapalli village have agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the defendants, that is Kapadam people, who are the residents of Gangalakunta village. As per the terms of compromise decree, the deity along with the articles mentioned therein should be exchanged in be...
Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer) Vs. Appireddy Ga ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALT512
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the appellant and Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda, Anantapur District is the appellant in this appeal and the petitioner in W.P.No. 16985 of 2000 is the respondent herein, namely, Appireddy Gad Chenna Reddy. Writ Petition No. 16985 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein to issue a Mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer), Penukonda to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). According to the respondent herein, his land measuring an extent of Ac.3.62 cents in Sy.Nos. 701 and 702 of Talamarla village of Kothacheruvu Mandal was acquired by the appellant under the provisions of the Act for the purpose of giving house-sites to the people belonging to weaker sections of the societ...
B.F. Pushpaleela Devi Vs. State of A.P., Rep. by Its Secretary, Educat ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)ALD1; 2002(5)ALT103
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Whether an Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against an order passed by a learned single Judge in a Review Petition declining to review the order is maintainable or not is the question involved in this Appeal referred to by a Division bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.7723 of 1998. She is a retired teacher in the 4th respondent institution. She filed the Writ Petition impleading the State Andhra Pradesh, represented by it's Secretary, Education Department, Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Educational Officer as respondents 1 to 3 respectively for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of pay fixation without reference to the fact whether the post held by her is aided or unaided and for a direction to the 3rd respondent- District Educational officer, Hyderabad District to grant her the scale of Rs.1550-3050 w.e.f. 1.6...
Venkata Ramana Agencies, Rep. by Its Mg. Partner K.V. Sudhakar Rao and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ALD636; 2002(6)ALT100
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Since all these C.R. Ps., arise out of interlocutory applications filed in the same suit, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. C.R.P.No.2204 of 2002 arise out of I.A.No.189 of 2001 filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C., to permit the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to adduce rebuttal evidence.C.R.P.No.2205 of 2002 arises out of I.A.No.756 of 2002 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 C.P.C., to permit the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to summon the documents mentioned therein and C.R.P.No.2206 of 2002 arises out of I.A.No.757 of 2002 filed under Order XVI Rule 2 C.P.C., by the revision petitioners (plaintiffs) to receive the list of witnesses to be examined in rebuttal evidence.3. Revision petitioners filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount from the respondents (defendants) alleging that revision petitioners 2 to 5 are the partners of 1st revision petitioner and that respondents by playing fraud, misappropriated the amounts belonging to the 1st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »